Two Republics
America does not have a right to exist. America is simply a collection of ideals bound together by the belief that men have inalienable rights that can neither be taken nor given. However, the thing about inalienable rights is that one must buy into this belief that they can neither be taken nor given. When this belief set is no longer held, man will allow themselves to be bound to those that they are willing to allow to enslave them. Inalienable rights are a foundation. And on that foundation are built further principles into the system of governance defined by our founding fathers. A system of self-governance rather than tyrannical rule is the next precept that follows in American’s philosophy of inalienable rights. The methodology of self-governance builds upon the ideology of inalienable rights by way of allowing citizenry to vote or select representation that maintains that the passage of laws governing the tribes of the land will not inflict harm on what are believed to be ideals that man cannot give or take away. But when these rights are no longer found at the core of the citizenries ideology, or the model of self-governance turns toward tyranny and forces rule upon its citizens without choice, the Republic is not failing it has already fallen.
In what is now considered the latter days of the Roman Republic, the citizens of Italy and the government were in a state of turmoil. The growth of the Republic brought with it great wealth and acquisitions, but it brought a tremendous divide and began creating factions in the political system. The largest of the dividing factions consisted of “old money” families with great fortunes as well as various classes and land owners whose main desire was for the continuation of the Roman State known as the Optimates. The other largest faction consisted of families with political power that began to amass the poor or “the mob” as support. This second faction used social issues to manipulate the lower classes for their bidding. This group, known at the Populares had only political ambition at their disposal, and used the needs and desires of the common man to gain a foothold and political capital.
At the center of the Populares movement were two brothers, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, often referred to as The Gracchi. The Gracchi began social programs and influenced the passage of social regulation that slowly began eating out the heart of the Republic and created a snow ball effect of consequences to the economic and social system. The growth of the Republic required new recruits. But social policy said that the Legion could not take recruits that were landless. And land owners were not entering the military because the economic system was forcing small farms into failure. Rich land owners would then buy up these farms and continue to prosper. While those that did not own land were not allowed to be recruited by the Legion to have a chance to turn their life around and make something out of themselves. Furthermore, these landless individuals were no longer hired by landowners because the landowners could import slaves at a cheaper rate. The result was Romans across the middle and lower classes out of work. Because of the lack of small farms food supplies began to run short. The solution to these problems became more government involvement, more social programs, and attempts at greater government power.
The Gracchi are credited with the foundations of socialism and populism. Their time is considered the period of the fall of the Roman Republic and the institution of the Caesars and the Roman Empire. The only reason that history exists is that one learns from it. The situation in the Roman Republic is as different as it is similar to the Republic of the United States of America. But the time line is intriguing. America has not always been at the forefront as a world leader. In fact for the majority of her lineage she has been relatively shut off from most world events, or arguably at least events outside of her hemisphere. It was really not until we as a people came out of World War II victorious, our country unscathed and our factories and people ready to work and help rebuild Europe that we emerged as a first world power. And in the last 60 years we have slowly forgotten the lessons of history. We have built up our social programs, we have awarded the lazy, we have punished diligence and hard work, we punish prosperity, and we even punish our citizens for dying. We redistribute because life is not fair. We create programs to create work to provide citizens benefits and when those programs do not create jobs we simply enforce benefits through taxation without choice.
When the people allow their government to forget the social contract between them, the system is broken. When the citizens speak out against their government and the government ignores the will of the people and responds in tyranny that, “We’re going through the gate, if the gate is closed, we’ll go over it, if it’s too high, we’ll pole vault over it, and if it’s even higher, we’ll parachute in,” the system is not broken, the Republic has fallen. The next six months are potentially some of the most important in our nation’s history. It is time we learn from past, retake our country, and rebuild the Republic.
-nick
Originally published at The Daily Caller.
The Enemy Within: A Conservative Response to a Radical Rebuttal
It is not often that I pay much attention to those who tread beyond the margins of respectable political opinion, much less on the fringes of American society. But after reading a member of Young Americans for Liberty’s response to my recent article at The Daily Caller, I’d like to volunteer some thoughts.
In my original piece, I argued that the vast majority of young conservatives who rightly support their country at war must begin standing down the insurgents within our political coalition who refuse to do so. I singled out the anti-war libertarian activists who have coalesced around people like Rep. Ron Paul and their viewpoints. Because these viewpoints tend to include sympathy for America’s enemies and gross historical revisionism (i.e., we provoked 9/11, the Civil War was unnecessary), I argued that proponents of such nonsense ought to be exposed and chastised by those of us who follow in the tradition of William F. Buckley. Just as he chased the radicals of his time out of the conservative mix, so must we.
What did my opponent from Young Americans for Liberty argue? Only a few excerpts from his diatribe need to be highlighted in order to understand precisely where he and his peers stand.
“I am arguing that the American government has engaged in a secretive, imperialistic, war-mongering foreign policy for over 20 years before 9/11 occurred at the cost of the peoples of both the United States and the Middle East.”
Truth be told, Osama bin Laden could not have said it better himself. If this is not a justification for some form of retribution against America, then I do not know what is. Furthermore, the Cold War policies to which he alludes were actually implemented in favor of liberating Afghanistan from communist occupation, at which we succeeded. And those policies, of course, ultimately led to the fall of the Soviet Union, of which he barely makes any mention.
“I mourn every day for the innocent people that died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, but I equally mourn for the men, women, and children of the Middle East who have endured horrible fates due to what Qualtere refers to as ‘the Good War of a new century,’ a war of aggression being cleverly disguised as a war of defense.”
It is not often that one hears a “but” follow an expression of sympathy for dead Americans, at least not when it comes from an actual American. It is even rarer, and vastly more disturbing, to see that “but” preface an equalization of one’s fallen countrymen with those slain by his country’s military during a combat operation. It is worth noting that the author does not bother at all to make any distinction between civilian casualties and dead terrorists. This is telling.
Earlier on in his article, he sarcastically dismisses another obvious distinction:
“Here’s a radical idea: suppose that young Americans consider the fact that the people of the Middle East are human beings just like us, and that the majority of them want nothing more than to live according to their own values. Suppose that a constant American military presence in the Middle East is recruitment fuel for Islamic extremists.”
Here’s a not-so radical idea: suppose that Americans don’t view everyone living in the Middle East as one homogenous people. Suppose that Americans choose to differentiate the liberated Iraqis who now fight shoulder-to-shoulder with our troops from the ones who once beheaded our men on video camera. And suppose that most Americans are able to see a clear difference between the Afghan woman about to be stoned for adultery and the clerical fascist with rocks in hand. But for that “American military presence,” she and countless others would be forced to live or die according to the oppressive “values” of someone else.
Unfortunately, radical libertarians like my opponent lack the courage to make these vital distinctions. Instead, they prop up contrived and utterly false moral equivalencies between an American soldier and a Taliban militant, between a terrorist attack and a legitimate military campaign, between radical Islamism and liberal democracy.
In the world view of such misguided souls, America has no enemies. The rest of the world, however, does. It is us. Alas, it is little wonder that the libertarian movement has attracted so many self-professed “9/11 truthers”—those who believe that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, planned and executed by the American government—with such public insinuations and arguments as the one with which my opponent closes his article:
“[T]he greatest enemies of our freedom are not hiding in caves overseas, but sitting in decadent halls right here at home.”
Elliot Engstrom, the author of Young Americans for Liberty’s rebuttal to my piece, need not worry about ever bearing any sort of influence on mainstream American politics. His radical assertions, only a few of which I’ve quoted above, have all but guaranteed his irrelevance and permanent place on the margins. But there are many more young activists like him, wise enough to conceal their apparent hatred for the United States but bold enough to continue jostling for political representation and power. All the while, they are obstructing the ideas and efforts of American conservatism and contaminating the party of Reagan with an extremism he would have despised. It is they who must be confronted, discredited, and exiled from the mainstream conservative movement lest they mistake their flimsy CPAC straw poll victory for anything more than a transient fluke. In particular, they are enemies of conservatives of every age, of every brand, of every background. Indeed, in the midst of this war for civilization’s very future, they are enemies of our nation’s indispensable fight for victory. Henceforth, let us treat them as such.
___________________
Tom Qualtere currently serves as research assistant to the president of The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. This column was originally published at TheDailyCaller.com.
George Will Gives Great CPAC Speech
Thanks to AllahPundit for this three-part speech.
Up Frum Conservatism Pt. II
I began this thread addressing the issue of Conservatives that were acting neither ?conservatively? nor even making any attempt to reconcile the many factions forming in the movement.? Mr. David Frum was the person I used as the vanguard of this particular predisposition mainly because of the advent of his NewMajority.Com.? Also, I found his name a delightful play on words and figured it would be appreciated by those of my acquaintances that were, and still are, William F. Buckley fans.? Mainly it was the former point that I sought to address, because I felt like I was bearing witness to a growing faction within the Conservative movement that sought to ?reform Conservatism? as though it were a party to be reformed.? It is slightly comical to me, that anyone calling themselves a Conservative can think this way if they are aware of Mr. Russell Kirk?s laments on the issue of conservatism as a movement in a party.? Conservative is a state of mind, being a Republican is a vehicle.? You cannot reform Conservatism, therefore what I believe Mr. Frum truly intends to do is to re-brand it as ?Republicanism.??
??????????? Conservatives and Republicans alike feel slighted by the recent regime that left power a mere six months prior.? Conservatives are of course divided further into the various principles they adhere to.? Neoconservatives are much kinder to President Bush, and easily ready the defenses against the gauntlet of attacks from Paleoconservatives, libertarians, liberals and mainstreamers.? Talk about President Obama?s ?blank slate,? President Bush was a champion of natural rights for those around the world by some; the advocate of unmitigated military expeditions by others.? He was a New World Order member hell bent on the destruction of the state sovereign in favor of a North American Union; and he was the Carl Schmittian disciple that put state above all and practiced the true international form of politics with a Hobbesian approach to state affairs and reckless disregard for the UN and international community.? He was an unapologetic radical Conservative by moderates; and a tax-cut and spend moderate Republican by Conservatives.? One got a very similar George W. Bush speaking to leftist rappers like Immortal Technique as they did rightist Conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones.? A convoluted portrait, as if Picasso were hired to have painted it to adorn the halls of the White House (I imagine something like this, you know, representing a Cowboy hat and such); A momentous digression, but interesting to point out to ?Bush Haters? nonetheless.? Either way, to be conservative is a reference of mind while being a Republican is the vehicle for action.? Mr. Frum and others on NewMajority seem to want to turn conservatism into something it?s not at the national level: a party.
??????????? Mr. Frum?s, and others?, actions are not malicious in that they are trying to ruin conservatism as some would suggest.? The NewMajority site claims to want to build a ?conservatism that can win again,? taking the bite out of standing on principles, and turning conservatism into a pragmatic arm of the Republican Party.? Here in lies Mr. Frum?s misunderstanding because as I have said before, Conservatism is a state of mind for people that may occupy the Republican or Democratic Parties (it happens to make up more of the Republican Party than Democratic, though I cannot see how one reconciles their conservatism with the Democratic Party of today as Henry ?Scoop? Jacksons or Zell Millers could in their day).? Conservatism, per se, is claimed by those who abhor it as an ideology.? It is contra to that notion, because conservatism was supposed to be the anti?ideal.? Conservatism is not a neat package.? At times I find people trying to argue this to Mr. Frum, or others on his website; but their plights seemingly fall on deaf ears.? They argue that they stand on principles, but the Republicans ask them to make their principles more malleable, ask for Conservatives to be more Republican because Republicans can win.? That?s like saying ?if you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.?? Yes, the only the Republicans can win because they are part duex currently of a two-party system.? But Republicans have been losing as of the past half a decade, which has caused a stir and focused the limelight on the Conservative movement that led the party to its zenith since its inception.? The prescription for Republicans? recent ill-health has been to blame the Conservatives and try to get Conservatives to ?open up;? which is the wrong strategy.
??????????? One could go on about the policies under President Bush and the then-controlled Republican congress, and how they did not live up to Conservatives? expectations and it cost the Republicans.? I will spare you the lecture, as there is little of that horse?s decayed carcass left to beat.? Rather, to borrow a term from my dear friend Tom, I will take the route of a ?forward-looking Conservative? and expound on my last paragraph by reaching back and taking some of the past principles that deserve to come with us into the new millennium.? There are two tenets to the Conservative movement that are strong and can help the Republican Party gain prominence (maybe not a majority, but being steamrolled by an Executive-Legislative tyranny of the majority is time and space we currently inhabit, and frankly it sucks): fiscal Conservatism and Social Conservatism.?
??????????? Fiscal Conservatism is a boring topic in my eyes.? Economics is a rambunctious beast that can be tamed through myriad means.? It is circumscribed by the actions of the market forces, or by government.? One keeps it chained so that it can move about within the confines of an open space while still being contained within the boundaries set by other outside forces so it cannot run off.? The latter keeps the beast caged; unable to attain any inkling of freedom, it is stifled by the iron confines of government completely.? During the last generation, we saw that the forces that generally tend to keep economics chained in the yard let the Cujo loose because they felt his total freedom and depravity would lead to unmitigated growth and prosperity.? Cujo was his by a truck.? Now our economy occupies the oppressive cage in the vet clinic, while Dr. Obama and his Technicians seek a treatment.? There is a complete lack of freedom now, which will not help our situation either because our economy will not grow at all.? Furthermore, our President has decided to overzealously pursue all of the drastic changes he campaigned for in his first year while he has the most political capital.? This has brought out the fiscal conservative in the average citizen.? Anderson Cooper can make sexual jokes about the Tea Parties, and ?conservatives? can deride the Tea Party protestors all they want; but there is a spirit and a fight in these people that can help the party.? Recent trends demonstrate a growing unease regarding President Obama?s spending and budget, and a new Gallup Poll shows that Americans are becoming increasingly conservative regarding the size and power of the national government.? This Gallup Poll released other preliminary numbers showing more Americans classifying themselves as ?Conservative? which now hovered at 40%, and David Frum was quick to squelch our optimism with his The Week piece? in which he makes the important argument that 40% won?t win elections.? He leaves out that we witnessed an impressive growth in self described ?Conservatives? at a time when the label and brand have been lambasted by the liberal media since 2006.? The Conservatives in the Republican Party need to act Conservative about spending, and the problems that arise from this are two fold: 1) history has not erased the fact that Republicans spent like drunken-sailors under President Bush and 2) it makes us the ?party of ?no??.? It is important that men and women like Mr. Frum continue doing what they are best at, molding Republican policies to be more Conservative.? How can we accomplish what we want by spending less, or incentivizing better behavior??
??????????? The second ?type? of conservatism was the one that took the most grief by their counterparts in the movement (libertarians) and liberals alike: the social Conservatives.? Being socially conservative can be broadly defined, but we imagine white bible-thumpers from the south.? While a lot of white southerners demonstrate a deep attachment to their faith and abiding by the teachings of that faith, we cannot let social conservatism be defined this way.? What about the black families that have strong values and a sense of tradition?? What about Hispanics who tend to be Catholic and also possess phenomenal family values?? There are a lot of pundits that dwell on hating social conservatives and deriding the party for failing to rake in more non-WASPs, but fall short in addressing the problem of attracting minorities on a foundation of social conservatism and family values.? Another Gallup Poll demonstrated America?s move into a Pro-Life direction, more Americans were self described as Pro-Life over Pro-Choice for the first time ever.? This is despite the fact that it is inherently an up-hill battle for a ?pro-life? movement because of our basic beliefs in curtailing what we view as government intrusiveness.? Nevertheless, people are deciding that protecting the concept of ?life? is a part for government even in this sense, and the increase came among Republicans and Moderates.? Also, there is something to be said about the Proposition 8 vote in California.? I have still managed to find an article that attempts to spin the Prop 8 outcome as some ?Republican surge to keep gays from marrying? and give no credit to the vote attributed by minorities.? As a matter of fact, the entire article is dedicated to snuffing out the African American vote by stating well they only make up ten percent of the population anyway.? Never mind that 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8, and furthermore, Latinos also supported the measure according to a Public Policy Institute poll; this in a state that voted 61% to 37% in Barrack Obama?s favor.?
??????????? Conservatism can be an inclusive tent, we need to find the ways and means to include people that don?t mean surrendering our ideals though.? This is not about ?reforming conservatism? because it cannot be reformed; the Republican Party can be reformed, but the drive to stand ?athwart history yelling ?stop?? and fighting for the principles or traditions you hold dear is a different story.? I believe that the Republican Party can be inclusive, but it needs to remember who the party people are and who the Conservatives are.? We need to be better about arguing our points and reaching out.? Not ostracizing anyone who crosses us as is accused of some radio-show hosts, and certainly not by abandoning what makes us conservative in the first place by pragmatists and Party loyalists.? We need to preach a good sermon, and more importantly, we need to practice what we preach.? If you build a strong Republican Party on a foundation of rights and justice, we can unify conservatives of all races, creeds and religions.? Our conservative impulses are not something to transcend, but something to embrace.?
?
-rj
Who’s “rooting against the country?”
During a phone interview yesterday on MSNBC, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) accused congressional Republicans of “rooting against the country” for daring to vote against cap and trade. I could only ask myself of the painful irony I was hearing, “Can he possibly be saying this with a straight face?”
The statement, deeply cynical and wholly inappropriate, along with the rationale behind it, deserves further examination. Listen to it for yourself here.
Here?s a partial transcription of what Waxman told host Andrea Mitchell:
So far, this Congress — since Obama became President — the Republicans have said no to an economic stimulus bill, they’re saying no to a global warming bill… They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They’re rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming. I wish they were playing a more constructive role. Some Republicans doubt the whole science of global warming, even though the consensus is overwhelming. They don’t want to believe it.
Let’s be clear: One of the same guys from the same party that not long ago suffered a near-panic attack at the prospect of American victory in Iraq is actually trying to call out the GOP for putting politics before, well, patriotism. As the saying goes, you just can’t make this stuff up.
Waxman did more than bestow new meaning upon the phrase, “People in glass houses shouldn’t cast stones.” As strange and irreverent as it may seem, Waxman actually confirmed just how much global warming may be to the left what Islamist terrorism is to the right, and probably still most Americans. “As Paul Krugman put it in Sunday’s New York Times:
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole, but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.
Still skeptical? Let’s reexamine Waxman’s own words. A simple swap of environmental-speak for war on terror talk and an interchange of party names offers a more precise illustration of his inadvertent irony. Here’s what a conservative Republican easily could have said just two short years ago:
So far, this Congress — since they became the majority — the Democrats have said no to the troop surge, they’re saying no to a war funding bill… They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Republicans. They’re rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global terrorism. I wish they were playing a more constructive role. Some Democrats doubt the whole success of the surge, even though the consensus is overwhelming. They don’t want to believe it.
See the comparison? In Waxman & Krugman’s world, global warming, not Islamofascism, is the “existential threat” that demands urgent, dramatic, status quo-altering action. All who oppose or even question them are, according to Krugman, committing “betrayal” and “a form of treason… treason against the planet.”
(Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard rightly points out that, according to leftwing criteria, more Americans are actually traitors as opposed to… I guess we’ll call them “patriots of the world.”)
Bottom line: Nobody ought to be “rooting against the country,” ever, for any reason at all. The reasons are too obvious to even list. And in a way, Waxman et al are at least right to be on the lookout for snakes in the garden. However, his accusation was both wrongly directed and poorly applied.” By lumping well-meaning Republicans in Congress with certain talking head types, Waxman completely rejects the serious arguments being made against cap and trade, not to mention the merits of various alternatives to the bill. (Such immense criticism will likely, hopefully lead to the bill’s demise in the Senate.) All things considered, who’s really doing the disservice to the country?
In recent years, many on the right have called out their fellow Americans — whether they’ve been Democratic leaders, the far left, Limbaugh, or even the paleocons — for openly craving the present administration’s failure. Such a selfish desire is downright vulgar in our modern, decent democracy and deserves to be condemned. Many on the left, however, have consistently been missing the mark.
In Waxman’s recent episode, legitimate concern was mistaken for callous sedition, quite possibly because he (like Krugman and others) truly believes global warming to be more deadly a threat than radical Islam. In his world, regrettably, basic policy skepticism is “treason” and the largest tax on the middle class in more than a decade, in the words of another Democrat, is “patriotic.”
___________________
Tom Qualtere currently serves as research assistant to the president of The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. This column among many others can also be found at NewMajority.com.
Up Frum Conservatism pt. I
Conservatism is in disarray; not so much because Conservatives don?t know what to believe, but because Conservatives feel betrayed and marginalized.? This conversation has been going on now for the past two years, and in all honesty, is a bit hackneyed.? Nevertheless, one needs to just visit David Frum?s New Majority and see the constant debate between different ?Conservatives? espousing different agendas.? Debate really rages when the many liberal cowans and ease-droppers that populate the boards dedicated to ?building a Conservatism that can when again? take their pot shots at the plethora of contributors.? I bring up Frum?s website because I admire the man for his intellectual vigor and his general ability to adapt the principles of Conservatism into public policy.
I have been in many debates, in the days of my youth (what I tend to call my Rousseauian days, or less ?lucid moments? as Burke said of Rousseau), with my professors in college regarding Conservatism.? The basic debates, as I was a sophomoric chap hell bent on anything ?freedom? and ?free-market.?? I find that high-school and collegiate Conservatives tend to be such a way; much more libertarian-leaning to counter the hordes of their liberal-leaning peers.? My favorite professor, and the one who molded me into what he calls an ?Aristotelian Conservative,? argued that Conservatives have to calm down on the ?hate the government? mantra.? I of course would respond with a typical talking point of some sort, but he would elaborate concisely by explaining to me the difficulty in asking people to ?vote for my side to run the entity I despise.?? Like asking for the reigns of a wagon, but hating horses, Conservatisms degradation from respect for a government (albeit one that is smaller and more efficient), into total malice for government on all levels no matter what.? Let?s clear some things up, true Conservatism respects government and power, it is this respect that drives us to remain vigilant when it comes to those in power.? We can want a smaller and more efficient republic without promulgating total disdain for government.?
This is where the likes of Mr. Frum, and other Republicans come in.? They can take the principles of Conservatism, and turn them into policies that are much more pragmatic and less utopian than much of the liberal welfare state?s programs.? I remember reading Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again while in college and being particularly struck by his chapter on education.? It was mind-altering for me, because as I was enjoying the splendors of a small state college, I was unaware that my learning (among other things) was being subsidized on as many levels as it was (including my loving and generous parents).? I remembered being a bit upset after reading the book in its entirety because it was not as Conservative as I?d hoped.? Yet, I learned to appreciate those who could use a Conservative foundation to build programs with less adverse consequences.
My disagreement with Mr. Frum has been on the rise as of late.? To many Conservatives it feels like they are laying on the hardened floor of the political structure, gasping for air, and David Frum seems to offer a helping hand while simultaneously slipping a kick in the ribs.? I don?t mean to say that Mr. Frum does not want to see Conservatism rise ?phoenix-like? from the ashes, but his antics have led him all over the political spectrum in recent months, almost as if he were holding a witch?s guiding stick in an effort to find more voters.? It feels like it is not about Conservatism, it is about the Republican Party.? What Mr. Frum seems to neglect in his political pontificating, is that Conservatives did congeal into the Republican Party in an effort to win elections, and the Republican Party screwed them.? Gerrymandering districts was a ?Republican? thing, not what Conservatives advocated.? Wreckless spending was a Republican problem (in an effort to keep getting votes) not a Conservative one, et cetera.? Mr. Frum is advocating a Party allegiance before principled interest in my book.? I cannot say that I am all for that, though I would rather see Republicans win, because the ?good? democrats that once existed seem to be an extinct species (except in very few cases).? We need to concentrate more on articulating Conservatism, and arguing against the stereotype that Conservatism is an ideology.? This, I believe, is what Mr. Frum means to do; but he is doing it in a way that marginalizes Conservatives.? We must explain that Conservatism is a reference of mind, the anti-ideal.? Within the ranks of Conservatism does true Socratic discussion lie; and it is when we turn to Party politics that we allow the slandering to occur.? The ?if you don?t support this then you are anti-American? or ?if you Conservatives don?t support the war without question then I am writing you out of the movement? is a prime example of party over principle and country.? I believe that the Republican majority can win and would be better for the country if they stay true, but I respectfully implore Mr. Frum to stop taking pages out of the Obama Administration play book.? Conservatives are starting to feel like we?re being treated like Obama treated his ?racist? grandmother; you know the one that supported him and his mother as he grew up, only to be thrown under the bus during his campaign so he could look like he transcended racism.? It feels like Mr. Frum is not acknowledging the importance of the movement that brought the Republicans to their most powerful culmination in history, and we do not want to end up under a Greyhound as well?
There is a post of David Frum’s from The Week that initiated this thought.? More to come…
-rj
Reagan vs. Buckley? – An Urgent Lesson
The following piece was originally published by and is the sole property of NewMajority.com
The specters of both Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley have been summoned over the past week to offer two examples for Republicans facing the distresses of minority status. In actuality, the models contradict, not compliment, one another. But there is a unifying lesson to be learned.
In last week?s Weekly Standard, Naomi Emery presented Reagan the Republican who used his ?unfailingly gracious tone? to bring the right, the middle, and remnants of the old left into what he saw as a must-be big tent Republican Party. In the June 1 Wall Street Journal, Richard Brookhiser reminded us of Buckley the Conservative who employed the same weapon to do just the opposite. Instead of party recruitment, Buckley used his brainpower as a battery to energize the magnetic pull of conservatism so that more Americans were attracted to the movement, regardless of which party they belonged to.
Ronald Reagan, ?unlike William F. Buckley, who urged his followers to shout ?stop!? to the onrushing currents of history,? Emery reminds us, ?thought history would be on his side.?? Buckley, whom Brookhiser says ?helped create the climate of opinion in which Ronald Reagan was elected president,? was unsure of such inevitability. Thus, both men?s immediate priorities were demonstrably different.
Whereas Reagan yearned for a robust and powerful Republican Party, Buckley was interested in nurturing a sacred and safely fortressed conservative movement. Emery?s Reagan wished to use a strongly populated GOP to torpedo his conservative message into the halls of the federal government. Brookhiser?s Buckley focused on keeping an increasingly popular American conservatism alive and pure by staying on the lookout for imposters or moderates, and thereby preventing its host party from fatal infection.
Both Reagan and Buckley were conservatives. Both were Republicans who had at least the general wellbeing of their party in mind. And they each shared the common goal of deterring and defeating what had come to be known as modern liberalism. But, according to Emery and Brookhiser, their ways of going about doing so (and thus the models they?re asking us to emulate) were quite different.
In Emery?s piece, ?Reagan in Opposition,? she details how Reagan refused to campaign for Jeffery Bell, his former aide ?who mounted a conservative primary challenge in the 1978 midterms to Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey.? Reagan?s reasoning was similar to that of President Bush when he supported Sen. Lincoln Chafee over his far more conservative primary opponent in 2006: Party first. (Sen. Case lost to Bell, but Reagan was somewhat vindicated when Bell eventually lost to former Sen. Bill Bradley.)
In his column, ?Bill Buckley and the Future of Conservatism,? Brookhiser recalls how Buckley ?was married to the GOP, but ? never expected it to be faithful to his ideas, and ? fought it when it strayed.? Such was the case when he challenged Republican John Lindsay for Mayor of New York in 1965 as a candidate for the state?s independent Conservative Party. Buckley ?went even further in party disloyalty? when he backed a liberal Democrat named Joe Lieberman in a 1988 Connecticut Senate race over the even more liberal Lowell Weicker, the Republican incumbent, helping cost Lowell the seat.
Clearly, we?re told, Reagan and Buckley viewed the relationship between the GOP and the conservative movement in different lights.? Reagan ?was a conservative and a Republican,? writes Emery, ?who understood the two roles of a movement and party, and how the two roles can converge.? However, she also claims that Reagan ?understood that the Republican Party has no obligation to present the conservative movement with a nominee to its liking.? This starkly contrasts Buckley?s position, which Brookhiser summed in no uncertain terms: ?The party should, as much as possible, support the movement, not the other way around.?
Two conservative icons, two different arguments to contemplate.
Assuming these recent analyses of Reagan and Buckley are faithful to the men?s actual political outlooks, the conflict of which example to follow back to prominence can appear daunting. Nevertheless, middle ground can be found.
Emery?s piece (subtitled, ?The Lessons of 1977?) brings us back to times like today, after the 1976 election when, as Robert Novak put it, the ?long descent of the Republican Party into irrelevance, defeat, and perhaps eventual disappearance? was becoming a (foolishly) accepted reality. In the face of a liberal Democratic majority in Washington and a country swollen with malaise, there stood Reagan?sunny, bright, and ardently right?using his words and wit to tug the American center towards his side of the yard.
Through his lecture circuit, columns, and radio broadcasts, Reagan sought to ?reframe conservatism in his own image? and make the Republican Party its home. In order to do so he needed to shake the dead skin of Nixon and Ford off the GOP and cloak it the antique armor of happier warriors like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. A former FDR/Truman Democrat himself, Reagan believed a party that reflected his view of America and his ideology could and would become a national party.
Buckley?s belief was equally confident and ambitious. Brookhiser describes his early postwar political vision:
The new president, Dwight Eisenhower, despite his conservative instincts, was unwilling to pick ideological fights. ? Germany, Japan and (it seemed) the Depression had been beaten by great collective efforts. The world had moved into a new era, and conservatives should recognize the fact.
Buckley would have none of it. He wanted a conservatism that stood for capitalism and freedom. The Cold War required another great mobilization, which Buckley supported wholeheartedly, but he would not lose sight of his individualistic goals.
Both Reagan and Buckley eventually got what they wanted: a national conservative Republican Party. Thanks to that entity, the Cold War ended in America?s favor and a new conservative consensus was solidified at home. Ultimately, their different approaches to their party and their movement did not matter as much as their similar tactics in winning over the hearts and minds they needed to turn their dream into a reality. It was the common method with which they fought for their common cause as political minorities that eventually lifted them atop the tidal wave that hurled them into majority rule.
According to Emery, Reagan ?was optimistic, inclusive, positive, disciplined, and focused on large issues.? So was Buckley. According to Brookhiser, ?Buckley thought it was possible to change climates of opinion, he knew it was futile to try to change certain facts about human nature? He was always trying to apply those great principles [first articulated by Burke] to the problems of the day.? So did Reagan.
Thus, it was Reagan?s willingness to allow anyone?ex-Democrats, moderates, single issue voters?into the Republican fold that made the party grow. But these new voters had to be at least comfortable with the GOP?s foundational philosophy if they were going to be pulling its lever in the voting booth. Thus, it was Buckley?s tolerance for an evolving conservatism that enabled the Republican Party to wrap itself around the conservative movement and remain palatable to voters for a generation.
Neither man ever ?opposed for the sake of opposing.? They always maintained a certain ?tone of voice? with which they offered their alternatives, often ?bringing in large blocs of ex-Democrats? in the process. Reagan, like Buckley, ?understood that his role was less to attack than to persuade,? especially as a candidate for higher office.? Thanks to the maturity and civility of both men, the GOP and the conservative movement benefited exponentially.
But Reagan?s unique ?tone of voice? and Buckley?s ?hyperarticulate defense of ideas? were not entirely what gave conservatives their time in the sun. Ultimately, the right came to respect and appreciate the need for the Republican Party as the only real means to advance their goals. Despite Buckley?s ?turbulent relationship? with the GOP, Brookhiser argues, he still ?never believed in trying to replace it with a new national party.? Wisely, Emery says, Reagan ?rebuilt the Republican Party around [the conservative movement], as a large and a national force.? Overall, the movement and the party, with full focus on their common adversary, more or less told one another, ?I?ll have your back if you got mine.? Majority status awaited them.
Those days are now over. Reagan and Buckley are gone and the Republican Party hasn?t had the uncomfortable relationship it now seems to have with the conservative movement since long before 1980. It doesn?t have to be like this.
Now back in minority status, many conservative activists are antsy and distrustful. Yes, much of their anxiety is understandable. But there lays a risk that their angst will only damage the GOP and prolong its time in the political wilderness. Such will be the case if certain conservatives (and you know which ones) keep telling themselves that party purity is more important than a party victory.
The time to be frank is now. A selfish ?take it or leave it? attitude by the base of the conservative movement towards the Republican Party is nothing less than a gift to the Democratic Party. Conservatives should not tell themselves, ?Well, as long as it?s Republicans the voters hate, we?re fine!? Nor should they believe for one minute that ?protest-voting? (which I witnessed far too much of here in DC last fall) is noble or commendable. All those who voted for Bob Barr to ?stick it to the Republicans? because ?John McCain wasn?t a real conservative? didn?t ?teach the party a lesson.? They simply voted for a lunatic and helped Barack Obama.
All successful relationships require commitment and effort from both sides. Emery is right when she says that ?the conservative movement has the obligation to lay out its case in so convincing a manner that it persuades most Republicans, most independents, and even some Democrats to follow its banner.? Living in a happy bubble is unacceptable. Meanwhile, Brookhiser reminds us that Buckley was in fact not a ?complete ideologue? and ultimately understood that ?the political vehicle of a late 20th century conservative movement was bound to be the Republican Party.?
The same goes for the 21st century. The days of disgruntled conservatives treating the GOP as little more than a quaint political organism to be considered for electoral use each November but free to threaten afterwards must end now. The purity tests and RINO hunting should cease and desist; the name of the game should be convincing others, not convicting our own. The common legacy of Reagan and Buckley would be honored, and those Americans wishing for a Washington without Obama would be grateful.
___________________
Tom Qualtere?currently serves as research assistant to the president of The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. This column among many others can also be found at NewMajority.com.
